Tue 11:25pm: Cliff avoided: Congress staves off tax hikes

January 1, 2013

WASHINGTON — Past its own New Year's deadline, a weary Congress sent President Barack Obama legislation to avoid a national "fiscal cliff" of middle class tax increases and spending cuts late Tuesda......

Comments

Marmel

OMG DOS. You keep posting this BS about permits and laws. That has nothing to do with my point. All societies have laws, regulations. Those are set up to protect others from you, to make sure you don't infringe upon their rights. DO u not get this. What do you think the purpose of laws are?????????? You have rights but your rights stop if they infringe upon somone elses. You don't have the right to kill somone if thats what makes you happy because that infringes upon somone elses right to life.

This is insane. In one breath you say you have the right to engage in commerce but this whole arguement started because you said we didn't.

Do you have the right to open a diner???? the anwser is YES. permits and regulations aside.

Marmel

Your being childish Jtoday. He was saying, if you read the text or listen to the entire statement, he likes to be able to have control over who he purchase health insurance from.

And if you find that disturbing then I find you disturbing.

Did you find it disturbing that Obama said we would just give grandma the pain bill instead of the operation? Was that disturbing to you? No, okay but wanting to choose who you purchase insurance from is???????????????

You are blowing something out of proportion because your media matters talking points dictate it.

Marmel

Marmel

What's your point MY MAN. I never said free enterprise was lawless anarchy. You must not have read my posts. The point is government protects my right to engage in business in a free market. So, they protect my right to free enterprise. Breaking down the definitions of "free" and "enterprise" doesn't equal the meaning free enterprise.

Marmel

No, because there are laws and competion for workers in a good economy. Wages should be competitive but fit the job. That is a regulation I am still free to operate within the laws. If I wasn't it wouldn't matter the law, they can just say "no, your a conservative you can't sell your products here".

Marmel

Well that is free enterprise. I think that you are assuming that regulations squashes the right of free enterprise but it actually "should" provide a healthy atmosphere for free enterprise. I don't wnat to hire a contractor that isn't bonded. I don't want to purchase a house without an inspection. Regulation is good, to much kills business. Free Markets aren't unlawful markets.

Marmel

Oh may! Free enterprise is not free of regulation. Regulations are put in place to provide a fair market and level playing field. Laws protect or rights. We are still free to engage. That is free enterprise also known as private enterprise. If free enterprise was not protected the government, state local, federal could stop lawful acts at whim, just because with no recourse. They cannot do that. Moonshinning is illegal because hicks cannot assure a safe product and are not bonded. Once you get bonded and are protected and others are protected you are free to distill or whatever.

Marmel

Dos: If you don’t truthfully answer those questions than we know you are a shill hack trying to forward an agenda. Well, we already knew that. But it just goes to show you ignorance and misunderstanding of what this country is. Freedom and liberty without free enterprise is not freedom and liberty it is called being a subject to government will. You can’t seem to pound that one through your narrow skull. You seem to think that since the words free enterprise are not in the constitution we have no right to it. Free enterprise is a product of the constitution not the subject.

Marmel

Dos: Answer these questions Are you free to buy a car of your choice from Jay Cole with your money? Are you free to open a Diner? Are you free to trade that car in or sell that diner? Are you free to purchase a house in Howland with your own money? Do you have a right to do these things? I think a seventh grader could answer those questions.

Marmel

Calling me stillborn and telling our constitutions doesn’t protect or liberties and freedoms is friggin hilarious. J Today: it is only offensive if it is cut and spliced. Context gives meaning. Dos needs to learn that regarding the constitution. He picks and chooses items and ignores others to serve his agenda.

Marmel

If free enterprise was not protected than forced servitude, forced economic discrimination is not a violation of a right. Telling someone they cannot open a business because they are black would not be a rights violation. If free enterprise is not protected there is no need for the 14th amendment. You backed yourself in a corner DOS. You fail to acknowledge that liberty cannot exist without free enterprise. How are we liberated when we have no control over our property? Answer me that DOS. Just out of curiosity dos what do you think free enterprise is?

Marmel

Are you kidding me dos? the fourteenth amendment says all citizens, not freed slaves. It is affirmation that all men are created equal. You’re dead wrong. Your understanding goes as far as your ideology permits. There is no exemption for anyone in the 14th amendment. It permitted slaves the same rights as non-slaves, private property being one. Free enterprise is freedom and liberty. I see you still are avoiding the main point and sticking to semantics like a good little slave. IF your warped logic holds true we wouldn’t have free markets or capitalism. The fact is our founding fathers crafted a document that allowed this system to develop. If freedom is not protected what is the point of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What is the point of private property? Why are we free?

jtoday

Marmel, have you personally heard someone say they LIKE firing people? I just think it is rather odd. There is a big difference between having to fire people and needing to fire people. It sort of goes along with the comment he made to the family about 'cookies from 7-11'. I think Romney is probably a decent person but is inability to see how these words are offensive to people is interesting.

Marmel

“I want people to be able to own insurance if they wish to, and to buy it for themselves and perhaps keep it for the rest of their life, and to choose among different policies offered from companies across the nation. I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. “It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. If someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I’m going to go get somebody else to provide that service to me.”

As you can see you have been misled by the truth brigade. Do you feel used? You should!

Marmel

Dos, I have the right to those things as long as they are legal. That is liberty, in essence. Legality is a different matter. Legality is protecting my rights from the infringement of others, or protecting others rights from me. Laws are set up to protect rights. Regulation, as I stated earlier, is not government run, government dictated economies, industries etc. Regulation protects my right to participate fairly in commerce, protection against fraud, protection against theft. Well regulated assures equal opportunity not equal outcomes.

Marmel

Dos, I guess I am assuming that your cognitive ability would permit you do form a conclusion or reasonably decipher text and derive the meaning from it. The 14th amendment protects free enterprise because it protects private property. It's hard to imagine that free enterprise can flourish if people don't think their property is safe from others and from the government. Yes the document does not say “protect free enterprise” but out of the rights granted by the constitution free enterprise flourished. You can’t say we are free, we have economic liberties, we have the right to the pursuit of happiness and at the same time say the constitution in no way protects free enterprise. I am free to buy and sell a car, am a not? A house? I am free to make money, am I not? This is free enterprise, You do know that?

Ihateusblues

"0Comments Romney: ‘I like being able to fire people who provide services to me’ Posted by Philip Rucker at 03:13 PM ET, 01/09/2012 TheWashingtonPost Text Size PrintE-mailReprintsShare:More > FacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditStumbleUponDiggDeliciousGoogle +1NASHUA, N.H. – Under assault from opponents painting him as a corporate predator, Mitt Romney came here Monday morning to defend his career in private equity but made a remark that seemed to underscore the narrative his rivals are pushing.

“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me,” Romney told a breakfast forum of the Nashua Chamber of Commerce. “You know, if someone doesn't give me the good service I need, I want to say, ‘You know, I'm going to get someone else to provide this service to me." <---Mitt Romney.

Marmel

The term "free enterprise" is not in the consitution. Liberty is, private property rights are, pursuit of happiness is. Are u saying I don't have a right to make a profit, operate freely with my money. Are you saying the constitution gives the federal government absolute authority over what I do with my money.

Marmel

It was set up to protect peoples liberty and freedom from government. Liberty includes free enterprise. Meaning my right to own private property, produce and sell in a free market within. It also was formed to limit the size and power of the federal government. You like to site clauses that you can twist to give government unlimited authority without the restraints set up within the same document.

Marmel

You are forgetting one thing DOS. The constitution limits government. Those powers not specifically granted fall to the states to decide. Doesn’t matter that you vote for someone and they are able to bend and twist the meaning of the constitution. The warnings, quotes etc. you say have no meaning actually provide context for the constitution and its creation. You can’t have what you advocate because it violates other rights specifically granted or implied. Such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, private property, freedom of religion etc. To use the general welfare clause to advocate for large government is ridiculous when the intent of the constitution was to form a small government. Regulation is meant to provide fair access for all in free enterprise. Protecting consumers from fraud etc. Not to force participation, bankrupt, bail-out etc.